Читать книгу Clydebank Battlecruisers - Ian Johnston - Страница 7
ОглавлениеThe first reference to the Invincible class contained within the Ship’s Cover is in a letter dated 20 March 1905, in which the Director of Naval Construction (DNC), Sir Philip Watts, was advised that the Board of Admiralty had approved the outline design submitted by the Committee on Designs for new cruisers to be included in the programme for 1905–6. The letter requested that the complete design should now be worked out and that the cruisers would be built by contract meaning by private shipyards and not by Royal Dockyards. As a new class of ship known from 1912 onwards as battlecruisers, they were at first referred to under several names such as armoured cruisers or large armoured vessels.
At Clydebank, the first reference to the contract that would become Inflexible was made on 16 August 1905 when the Shipyard Director, John Dunlop, reported to his board that the company was in discussion with the Admiralty concerning a large armoured vessel. At this meeting, Dunlop said that should this order proceed, a large investment in plant would be made at the yard totalling £60,000. At the same meeting, the Board took notice of the implications of the Official Secrets Act (1889) in relation to this vessel. A set of drawings and a detailed specification provided by the Admiralty formed the basis on which the shipbuilder would estimate the building costs necessary to submit a tender. Three ships of the Invincible class were to be constructed originally to be named Invincible, Immortalité and Raleigh. Of the three, it had already been decided that one (Raleigh) was to be fitted with electrically-operated 12in main armament mountings while her sister-ships had the proven hydraulic type as fitted in the Lord Nelson class pre-dreadnought battleships.
On 12 October 1905, John Brown & Co submitted a tender to the Admiralty for ‘An armoured vessel to be fitted with turbines of 41,000ihp and 31 Yarrow boilers’.
The tender also included a price for fitting the vessels with Babcock & Wilcox boilers which cost an extra £8,660 plus £1,340 profit giving a total of £10,000 in addition to the above. This type of boiler offered advantages over the Yarrow type but was more expensive and weighed more. Delivery of the ship on the Clyde was to be in two-and-a-half years with an additional six weeks extra for the completion of drawings.
Inflexible’s stern on No 2 berth shorn of all staging and ladderways shortly before launching in June 1907. This view shows the arrangement of her twin rudders, starboard shafts and stern torpedo tube.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-12)
The above tender shows the way in which the shipbuilder categorised the work to be done and estimated the cost for each category and added a profit, in this case 7.5 per cent, to give a final price. Usually, the cost for armour and armament was not given as these items were supplied to the shipbuilder by the Admiralty. In the case of Inflexible, a price for armour is included with no profit shown but armament is not included. The final price indicated, £1,198,445 was therefore not the final price of the vessel but the amount the shipbuilder was owed for the work done.
At the monthly Board meeting on 18 October 1905 at Clydebank, it was announced that the contract for the armoured cruiser had been won and the ship given the number 374. However this almost certainly meant that the contract was on a provisional basis. Before the contract could be awarded formally, the merits of the tender were examined and evaluated in detail by the Admiralty, resulting in a series of issues relevant to each builder and upon which final confirmation of the contract would be dependent. To give some indication of this evaluation process the following quotes have been taken from a document that was circulated around the various technical departments at the Admiralty.
Messrs Armstrong and Messrs Fairfield consider the total weight and space of the machinery sufficient and that the capacity of the boilers will give the required power. Messrs Brown do not mention this, but the total estimated weights filled in the machinery specifications by that firm agree with the specified weights, and they have submitted drawings showing the machinery in the assigned place except that:
a) the wings in the engine rooms are shown entirely cut away between stations 169 and 179.
b) recessing is shown in the middle strake of inner bottom.
If this firm’s tender be accepted, submit to inform them with regard to a) and b) that the cutting away of wings and the recessing referred to, cannot be accepted.
Neither of the firms tendering propose departure from the Admiralty’s design and specification of the machinery, but Messrs Brown propose some slight rearrangement of some of the auxiliary machinery in the engine rooms and alterations in the vertical position of the forward boilers. If this firm’s tender be accepted, it is considered that this, subject to the remarks on the preceding paragraph, could be satisfactorily arranged.
If the Elswick tender be accepted, the firm should be informed that the 12” gun mountings, forward capstans and boat hoists are to be worked electrically in the ship to be built by them and that the necessary modifications to the ship are shown by fly tracings to the building drawings and by the accompanying revised specifications.
This evaluation shows a degree of latitude in the design and specification supplied by the Admiralty to the shipbuilder but equally, that certain elements of the design were not negotiable. In other words, while the ships would look similar and achieve similar performance levels, there would be detail differences peculiar to the approach taken by individual shipbuilders. This process of examining the tender documents in detail and discussing same with the shipbuilders took some time to complete and at November’s Board Meeting at Clydebank, it was noted that they (John Brown & Co) had agreed to all of the conditions stipulated in a recent letter from the Admiralty. At December’s meeting it was noted that ‘the formal contract for No 374 was still not signed’ and it was not until the Board meeting of 31 January 1906 that Dunlop was able to state categorically that the contract had been officially signed. This action was accompanied by the transfer of a full set of drawings to the shipbuilder to enable him to begin work. With this prestigious and profitable contract secured, the Company authorised the capital expenditure on the works to improve the level of facilities in the yard. The single most important item was the construction of a second 150-ton fitting-out crane to further enhance fitting-out arrangements in the yard – one had been ordered and erected two years earlier to fit out Lusitania.
On 2 December 1905, the Admiralty decided that the contracts for the ships, now given more familiar names, would be awarded. As was customary, an Admiralty representative, a constructor from the DNC’s office, was appointed to each shipyard to oversee construction of the hull. Visits to the yard would also be made by other overseers to supervise construction of the ship’s machinery and the installation of electrical work etc. Ordnance and armour supervisors would also inspect work undertaken by the armament and armour manufacturers, in the case of Inflexible, at Barrow and Sheffield.
Invincible; Armstrong Whitworth & Co, Elswick. Admiralty Overseer G Bull.
Inflexible; John Brown & Co Ltd., Clydebank. Admiralty Overseer W H Burt.
Indomitable; The Fairfield Shipbuilding & Engineering Co Ltd., Govan. Admiralty Overseer A W Cock.
The machinery for Inflexible and Indomitable was to be constructed by their builders while that of Invincible by Humphrys, Tennant & Co.
The Hull Overseer fulfilled a vital role throughout the building process and was responsible for monitoring progress of construction, checking materials delivered to the yard and keeping the DNC informed of progress on a regular basis. The Admiral Superintendent for the district also played an overseeing role during construction although at a greater distance. At Clydebank, overseers were provided with their own offices and facilities and would spend time working in the Admiralty Drawing Office, other shipyard departments and outside at the building berth.
As three shipyards were involved in building three ships of the Invincible class, the opportunity was taken to minimise the duplication of drawing office work at each yard. At the end of December 1905, the Admiralty wrote to each of the three shipyards specifying the area of the ship each would be responsible for.
This division of drawing office work reveals that most of the structural work for the hull went to Armstrong Whitworth, with most of the work associated with the armour going to Fairfield.
With orders now formally placed, in January, Fairfield wrote to the Controller requesting information on the ship’s scheme of complement as ‘so much depends on this’. Admiralty response was to provide Fairfield with a full list of the ships complement.
Once drawing office work began, drawings could be made available to the mould loft to enable the ship’s lines to be laid off in full size. Wooden templates taken from these lines were then transferred to the platers’ shed where the first steel plates could be prepared for keel laying. At the same time, the building berth was made ready by ship-wrights, who carefully and accurately aligned massive baulks of pitch pine to the correct declivity ready to receive the keel plates. Inflexible was the first of the class to be laid down. The laying-down dates of the three ships were:
| Inflexible | 5 February 1906 |
| Indomitable | 1 March 1906 |
| Invincible | 2 April 1906 |
A detailed month-by-month account of progress based on reports made at Clydebank is given at the end of this section. However, the following notes, covering some of the more salient issues, give a fuller view of activity in the yard and elsewhere.
Throughout the building period, there was a constant flow of information, usually by letter, from the shipbuilder to the Admiralty and vice versa. When the matter was urgent, communication was by telegram. The following examples provide some indication of the traffic that passed between the Admiralty, shipbuilder and other contractors. In January 1906 it was agreed that Fairfield should be allowed, at their request, to use 24ft-long steel plates for the forecastle. In November, Armstrongs and Vickers, the main armament manufacturers, were advised that henceforth main armament wing turrets were to be referred to as ‘P’ and ‘Q’, as gun trials on Dreadnought had proved that ‘B’ and ‘C’, as they were originally named, caused confusion because of the similar sound these letters made. In December 1906, when a mock-up of the anchor and hawse pipe arrangement on Indomitable gave cause for concern under trial, a better solution was observed on the Cunard liner Lusitania, then fitting-out at Clydebank. It was agreed by the Admiralty overseers that this arrangement should be used on Inflexible and Indomitable. In February 1907, Engineer Commander F D Thomsett RN, was ‘directed to inspect during the fitting on board, the machinery and boilers of HMS Invincible at the works of Sir W G Armstrong Whitworth & Co Ltd, Newcastle on Tyne. Mr W Vick, Boiler Overseer, to assist in connection with the boilers’.
The three Invincible class ships were launched (in chronological order):
| Indomitable | 16 March 1907 |
| Invincible | 13 April 1907 |
| Inflexible | 26 June 1907 |
On 25 March 1907, the Hull Overseer at Fairfield observed the water testing of No 1 boiler room on Indomitable noting that, ‘When flooded to 5 feet above the load water line, one stay in the starboard wing bunker bent under compression and others showed indications of bending. The transverse bulkheads at [stations] 55 and 81 deflected very little under the full head of water. The water was not out of the compartment on Saturday to enable a complete record to be made of the permanent deflections, but as far as could be judged, it is anticipated that they will be insignificant.’ The solution was to change the flanged plate method of connection to that used in Inflexible, i.e., plate and angle brackets, as no failure was observed in a similar test on board that ship.
On 5 July 1907, an inclining experiment, conducted to calculate the ship’s centre of gravity and thus her stability, was carried out on Indomitable in the fitting-out basin at the Fairfield Works. To do this, the ship was held by two hawsers, one at the bow and one at the stern. One hundred tons of ballast was ‘spread over 70 feet’ and two 15ft-long pendulums were positioned one forward and one aft. ‘During the reading, the men on board were stationed at the middle line. The ship was free of water but a considerable amount of lumber and plant was on board.’
The main armament mountings for Invincible (electric) and Indomitable (hydraulic) were both manufactured by Armstrongs at Elswick. In late July, the first of Inflexible’s main armament mountings arrived at Clydebank by ship from Vickers ordnance works at Barrow. These complex and heavy components were carefully lifted out of the specially-prepared coaster and placed on the quay of the fitting-out basin. With a maximum lift of 150 tons available at the fitting-out basin, manufacturers such as Vickers and Armstrong had to plan for this while these mountings were under construction.
Inflexible’s hydraulic gun trials, where the mechanisms were operated but the guns not fired, took place on 14 May 1908 in the shipbuilder’s fitting-out basin and were found to be generally satisfactory. Full gun trials were carried out on 18 June 1908 off the Isle of Wight under the supervision of the Shore Establishment HMS Excellent. Despite finding the trials to be generally satisfactory, criticism was levelled at Vickers as the excerpt from the first page of the report indicates.
The following were incomplete and could therefore not be tested at Gun Trials. It is important that these should be completed before the Final Gunnery Inspection takes place, and when possible in future before Gun Trials.
Fire control installation
Kilroy’s Bias and Danger Signals
Alternative wash out system for turrets (shipbuilder’s part)
Blast screens for 4-inch guns crews on A and X turrets.
It must be remarked that the erection and care and maintenance since erection, of the 12-inch mountings, as in the case of the Agamemnon, compares unfavourably with mountings erected by Messrs Armstrong, as for instance in Indomitable. Many simple adjustments, among others, some which were pointed out to Messrs Vickers’ representatives at the preliminary hydraulic trials on the 12 May were still incorrect at Gun Drills and Trials, such as run out cut off, fouling of sights against the armour, etc, and it is considered that more attention in this respect should be paid by Messrs Vickers.
A marked feature of the trials was the poor training control. The creep is not at all good; the movement is jerky; the turrets do not start or stop with precision, the reversal of direction of training is erratic.
Invincible’s full power trials were carried out on the Polperro measured course on 7 November 1908 and returned 46,500shp at 295 revolutions for a speed of 26.64 knots and her gun trials on 30 October 1908.
In October 1908, the DNC wrote to the E-in-C to advise him on the differences between Babcock & Wilcox boilers fitted in Indomitable and the Yarrow type in Inflexible. The total weight of the machinery installation for Indomitable was 3166 tons and 3047 for Inflexible a difference of 151 tons in favour of Yarrow which, the DNC noted, was greater than had been anticipated. The Ship’s Cover quotes the estimated original and actual costs of the three ships as follows:
Another pre-launch view of Inflexible showing the forward poppet on the starboard bow. This is one of four poppets that will keep the hull upright during the launching run. Drag chains have been neatly arranged on the ground beside the hull to slow the ship once in the water. Notice the starboard underwater torpedo tubes visible immediately behind the poppet. In the right foreground the launching platform has been erected and the area fenced off in preparation for the thousands who will come to witness the launch.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-11)
A detail of Inflexible’s stern showing rudders, propellers, shafts and cast steel shaft brackets.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-15)
Looking forward from the quarterdeck towards ‘X’ turret with ‘Q’ turret visible on the starboard beam. A light steel blast screen has been fitted around the two 4in guns on top of ‘X’ turret. ‘A’ turret was given a similar screen although they appear to have been removed soon after.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-21)
John Brown also built many of the ship’s boats. This view shows a completed 50ft steam pinnace for Inflexible sitting on blocks having been freshly painted. Inflexible is visible in the fitting-out basin at the left. The steel structure behind the pinnace is the lower part of the new 150-ton cantilever crane.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-17)
A cluttered quarterdeck in this June 1908 time exposure with naval and shipyard personnel working to complete the ship during the trials period. The ship is lying at the ‘Tail of the Bank’ off Greenock.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-20)
Inflexible’s conning tower and bridge structure with canvas screens in place. Skylights, hatches and lockers await fitting while worker’s jackets hang on convenient items. Note the light steel screens that have been lowered to reveal a 4in gun.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-23)
A midships view taken in the fitting-out basin prior to the start of trials. Apart from minor fitting-out details the ship is substantially complete, although she has yet to receive her boats.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-29)
The after end of the ship showing the arrangement of booms for the anti-torpedo net gear. Three tugs are waiting off Inflexible’s stern, possibly waiting to pull her out into the river.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-30)
The 12 × 10-inch plate camera used to take this photograph would have required a minor performance to set up, witnessed by the shipyard works watching intently from Inflexible’s bow. The ship is drawing just 23 feet forward.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-28)
Lying off Greenock in July 1908, this view of the midships area shows the boat stowage abaft the forward funnel. The general clutter on board indicates that this is an early trial trip to deal with any obvious difficulties after which the ship will return to the yard for completion. The paddle tug Flying Scotsman is alongside aft of ‘P’ turret.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-25)
A view from the forecastle deck looking aft towards ‘P’ turret. Note the men on top of the aftermost funnel.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-24)
The simplicity of the bridge and forward superstructure is evident in this view. Note how the bridge sits on the crown of the conning tower and the light supporting structure of the compass platform.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-29)
With the ship moored in the Firth of Clyde, workmen take a break in this view of the forecastle. Notice how far inboard the stanchions are fixed at the deck edge to allow for net stowage and the blast screens surrounding the twin 4in guns on ‘A’ turret.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-27)
Inflexible’s bow with two 125-cwt Wasteney Smith stockless anchors ready to receive a coat of paint. Not legible in this reproduction is the verse from a song painted below the staging at bottom left. It reads:
These are the banks of Claudy Fair maid where on you stand But don’t depend on Johnny For he’s a false young man.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-31)
It is not difficult to see how occupancy of the control tops, in this instance the after control platform, could so easily be rendered untenable by funnel smoke.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-32)
The bridge, chart house and compass platform seen from the bridge wing showing a lot of canvas and wire ropes. The lower portion of a semaphore device with operating levers and chains is to the left of the tripod strut.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-34)
Bits of the accommodation ladder and various other items lying around on the forecastle waiting to be fitted. Note the very neat proportions of ‘A’ turret 12in gun house and work proceeding on the 4in guns on its roof.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-35)
‘P’ turret and barbette with the associated armoured area mounted on the hull. Note the temporary cabin hoisted on board behind the turret.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-29)
A view of the after funnel, flying deck with boat deck above and mainmast tripod struts photographed from the roof of ‘P’ turret. From this image, drawings and a bowler hat can be seen in the temporary cabin denoting use by a shipyard manager or Admiralty overseer.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-37)
Another view of the after superstructure and boat deck. Long davits were required to enable the 32ft life cutter to swing over the deck to the ship’s side. The cast circular plates on deck are scuttles for coaling the ship. Although undated, these photographs were probably taken in June 1908.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-36)
The ship’s steam siren and access ladder mounted on a bracket secured to the rear of the forward funnel; good detail shots of a 36in searchlight and its mounting.
A view looking forward over the 12in guns of ‘P’ turret with the midships boat deck at left. Note the derrick and boom for lifting the ship’s boat.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-38)
Although the glass plate negative is cracked, at least ten ratings are visible in this photograph sleeping at their mess tables. What looks like hammocks are stowed above on the deck head.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-39)
A view of the refrigeration plant supplied by the Haslam Foundry & Engineering Co Ltd, Derby. The plate at the centre of the fan housing marked FAN-RR, says the fan supplies main deck cabins 34 to 55 and the forward barbette.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-40)
Two magnificent shots of Inflexible steaming at full power in a calm sea displacing great troughs of sea down either side. In conditions such as these with maximum smoke being made, the after control platform would have been untenable.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-46)
The Admiral’s Day Cabin located on the port side upper deck slightly aft of ‘A’ barbette. The cabin has good natural light from a large skylight as well as a window to the right. The cabin contains many personal items, some arranged on the mantle shelf and writing desk. Seven pipes have been laid out on the latter.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-42)
(NRS UCS1-118-374-45)
Three photographs of Inflexible taken within a short time of one another in light condition on the Firth of Clyde during her final trials period in September 1908. She is fully rigged and all canvas screens have been fitted giving the forward superstructure a fuller look.
(NRS UCS1-118-374-52)
(NRS UCS1-118-374-50)
NRS UCS1-118-374-49)
